SGUK Podcast – Clout Chasers for Relevance

Episode 94



This week’s podcast is entitled Clout Chasing for Relevance.  We will look at two organisations who attached themselves to Prince Harry, for nothing else but to raise the profile of their respective organisations, under a fake or at best, less than important reason for the matter to be investigated in relation to anything that Harry had been working on previously. Both topics given as the fictitious reason for investigation would have been more use in one of the two cases, if another individual from a choice of several could have and should have been investigated on a number of fronts.  In the other example, it was not so much the individual that this clout chaser was pursuing, but an organisation who officially handles such topics, is in their line of fire relating to how they have handled previous documentation.

Sometimes it pays to ignore UK media, in fact I would say most of the time, because what they actually print, or what they want the pubic to focus on, is not the matter in hand.  It is always distraction with them.  UK Media have lost credibility some time ago, but definitely since April 2020, when they were officially removed from any activity an d news of any activity pertaining to Harry and Meghan, they have lost their minds completely now.  Laughing stock does not cover it. It mirrors other top societal groups, and it matches the views of most people polled about their thoughts on UK media competence and reliability.  Royal Reporters don’t care, as they still manage to earn something, but it is getting less and less each passing day.  Could not happen to more deserving people.


Taken from their website:-

We want to see the monarchy abolished and the King replaced with an elected, democratic head of state.

In place of the King we want someone chosen by the people, not running the government but representing the nation independently of our politicians.

Why do we want a republic?

It’s simple: Hereditary public office goes against every democratic principle.

And because we can’t hold the King and his family to account at the ballot box, there’s nothing to stop them abusing their privilege, misusing their influence or simply wasting our money.

Meanwhile, the monarchy gives vast arbitrary power to the government, shutting voters out from major decisions affecting the national interest.  The King can only ever act in the interests of the government of the day and does not represent ordinary voters.

The monarchy is a broken institution. A head of state that’s chosen by us could really represent our hopes and aspirations – and help us keep politicians in check.

Replacing the monarchy with a democratic alternative – an elected head of state – will make a real difference to the country. It isn’t the answer to every issue we face, but it will give us a better democracy and will solve some real problems.

  • When Britain becomes a republic we will at last make sure that our nation’s democratic values go right to the top.  We will change the political culture and our relationship with those in power.  Ordinary citizens will be able to take part in the process of choosing our head of state and even put themselves forward for the job.
  • Becoming a republic will put a stop to the royals’ routine abuses of public money and their daily interference in our country’s politics.  In a republic the Windsor family will be equal citizens too, with the same rights to take part in the political process as the rest of us, but no special access or privileged status.
  • A move to a republic will give us the chance to re-balance power between government, parliament and the people.  By getting rid of the Crown we can put limits on what our government can do without the support of parliament – and put limits on what parliament can do without the clear support of the people.
  • A republic will give us an effective head of state, someone chosen by us to referee the political process and champion the interests of the British people.
  • A democratic Britain will also give a huge boost to ‘brand Britain’.  Our nation’s image abroad will be of the modern, confident and forward looking country we really are.  As Visit Britain says in their guide to promoting Britain, we can avoid the cliché-ridden imagery of the past and promote our heritage as a living part of a dynamic, positive and modern nation.
  • Becoming a republic solves some immediate problems – but it also gives the people the power to continue making Britain a more democratic and fairer place to live.
  • Of course, this is a very British republic.  Our heritage and history will remain with royal palaces (that are already owned and paid for by the taxpayer) open all year for tourists.  This campaign is about building on the best of what we already have, taking our political institutions and making them genuinely democratic and there for the people, not the few.

The Heritage Foundation USA

Now more than ever, the American people need a champion to preserve the great American experiment and everything good and just that it represents.

That’s why The Heritage Foundation exists. We champion policy solutions that benefit all Americans. But Heritage is also much more than a think tank.

Every day, Heritage works in our nation’s capital to build an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish.

But unlike so many other organizations in Washington, D.C., The Heritage Foundation’s focus isn’t on putting more power into the hands of government—it’s on returning power to the people.

That’s why we don’t work on behalf of any special interest or political party. Instead, our commitment is to the American people, which is why more than 500,000 members support our work.

>>> Learn More: Why We Speak With One Voice

Heritage’s world-renowned experts—deeply experienced in business, government, the military, nonprofits, academia, and communications—spend each day developing innovative solutions to the issues America faces. From empowering parents in education, reversing growing spending and inflation, and protecting the unborn, to securing America’s borders, countering the threat of Communist China, holding Big Tech accountable, and ensuring free and fair elections—Heritage is on the front lines in the fight to help Americans thrive.

Our team then takes those solutions directly to decision makers in government, to turn ideas into action. Heritage has been consistently ranked the No. 1 think tank in the world for it.

But we don’t stop there. We also:

  • communicate to citizens how government can work more effectively for all Americans, through traditional media, social media platforms, and Heritage’s in-house outlet for news and commentary, The Daily Signal;
  • engage with the international community to promote freedom, peace, and trade that benefits America and the world;
  • train the leaders of tomorrow who will lead America to a brighter future; and
  • help unite the conservatives around principles and ideas that strengthen our cause … and the nation.

Clout Chasers – Definition

Clout chaser is a critical term for a person who is thought to be intent on attaining fame, especially one who tries to do so in ways considered desperate, such as leveraging their proximity to famous people or doing things considered foolish, degrading, or dangerous.

The term clout chasing is sometimes used to refer to the act of pursuing fame in this way.

The term clout chaser is most often applied to people viewed as attempting to increase their own fame or influence by trying to associate—or engage in conflicts—with those more popular or famous than themselves.

A person may be referred to as a clout chaser because they’re attempting to become what’s known as an influencer. While opinions about influencers can be both positive and negative, the term influencer itself is typically used in a neutral way. In contrast, the term clout chaser is almost always negative and implies criticism of the person it’s applied to.


The Psychology of Attaching Oneself to A Person Frequently in the News in Order to Raise Your Own Profile

It is not about winning or succeeding in something over and above the person they chase.  It is about becoming known; enough for people to want to know more about the person involved in some kind of litigation with a high profile person or organisation. If the famous person is a global figure, even better, because there is the potential for a much wider audience to get to know you or your business on a global platform.  In the case of The Heritage Foundation and Republic, both chose a globally well known individual.  A global figure who is popular and has been for many years, since childhood.

Both of these organisations chose the British Royal Family, as it is a globally known institution. The British Royal Family operates in a hierarchical way, in that in theory the person with the highest rank (by order of birth) is the one deemed to be the most important.  That system operates through the whole succession list.  The person who has the highest profile is the person highest in rank, and it matters not whether or not that individual is the most popular.  In UK Royalty it is rank that counts.  In business, however, money talks, and one of the most famous division and ultimate break up of what was deemed a family who would be together to the end, the UK Royal Family found themselves in competition with one of their own.  Prince Harry was always the most popular Royal, next to his grandmother, Queen Elizabeth.  On occasion, Prince Harry came top of those polls.  When however, he met and married another global icon, the stage was set for the fireworks to begin within the Royal Family.  Overnight, following the announcement, this new couple soared in popularity on the global stage.  Following their marriage in 2018 and the subsequent tours abroad, the popularity that most of the BRF suspected would happen, did just that.  Up until that point, the popularity was confined to the UK, or at least so the Uk establishment and its media thought would be the case. An American actress, in typical British arrogance style, was no one to write home about.  The UK media and Royalists severely undersold and underplayed how prominent Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex was, and how she was already a multi millionaire before marrying into the BRF.  Unlike any female joining that family, she did not come empty handed, and she had many years of philanthropic work under her belt.  Experienced in putting projects together, and their execution and completion, all with measurable outcomes.  Meghan is multi lingual too.  Ideal skill set and experiences to be an asset to the UK Royal Family. Meghan was a high scoring academic with high achievements in studies and the workplace, all of which added to the value she produced in her philanthropic endeavours. Meghan also had over 1m social media followers on Instagram, which also gave her the global profile, that Prince Harry also enjoyed. 7 years in a successful  tv series earned her the millions, and she continues to receive very high residuals every time a show appears on the screen on each network and in whichever country is showing.  Residuals alone are adding multi sized numbers to her Bank account for every minute of footage.  To put it into perspective, one actor who appeared a few times in one series, and who in total was on screen for approximately 10 minutes, has earned varying amounts in residuals from small figures to around $4000 for those ten minutes shown in whatever number of states or countries and network, that month.  So imagine Meghan who was one of the main characters, in every episode for considerably  more than ten minutes in all series and episodes.  So, yea, the BRF and media greatly underestimated her wealth and skill set and wide range of genuine project management, and not performative activity with creative Royal Engagement figures published each year, to be able to claim that the UK Royal Family worked for the UK and its tax paid to keep a Monarchy going.

Two years later the jealousy and the turbulent atmosphere behind palace gates, and via tv and printed media, every single day, telling Meghan to go back to the USA, and including the bullying and harassment from both partners in the invisible contract which led to suicidal ideation during her first pregnancy.  Meghan was refused medical care by the BRF, and no funds were allocated upon marriage into the family.  Every outfit the public saw during all those Royal tours and visits around the UK, were commissioned and paid for by Meghan, along with all her expenses.  Eventually breaking point was reached, and both Meghan and Harry stepped back from Royal duties and moved to another continent.

The BRF thought that they could further destroy or break the spirit of the couple and force them to return to the UK for abuse that they were used to.  Three plus years later, the Sussexes are on their way to becoming billionaires, and their Foundation and all the charities that they work with are thriving.  Rather than dim their light, the couple are beacons on a global stage, and are global icons.  I can understand why those who want notoriety for their cause or organisation choose to align themselves in some way in the Sussex glow up, because regardless of their intentions, or people perception as to the reasons for their actions, there is no doubt that Republic and The Heritage Foundation have boosted their organisations notoriety compared before they linked themselves to Harry or Meghan or both.

How and Why Some Attach Themselves to Someone Else’s Wave

My own opinion is that Republic raised their profile in the UK, but if interested supporters or people long time supporters and members were left somewhat perplexed in the way Republic chose to find a reason to start a process which would take months, and a process that would be UK media every day for months, I think it was an own goal.  At best it raised the profile a little, but the issue that Republic demanded an investigation into, fell short of the overall objective of raising the profile of Republic, and to increase more members to come forward.  In my case, I was interested before, and was ready to be a member.  I already followed Republic, but their decision to go after a member of the Royal Family, who was no longer a working Royal, and who had to leave the UK due to the bullying and harassment was a huge mistake.  The query raised by Republic was around accounts and questionable accounting etc, and yet most people who had even a passing interest and glance at Royal accounts, knew that there were an abundance of questions that could and should be asked about several areas of Royal accounts, and in the case of more than one senior Royal, justifiable questions to be asked about a multitude of things that needed to be asked and to be investigated.  Republic clearly decided that most of the UK population could care less about the finer details of accounting processes used, and would struggle to believe that there was any misappropriation of funds.  Whilst Republic were correct that the Royal Family combined came nowhere near the level of interest, or income generated from articles written by their own media pals, it achieved nothing.  The investigation took place and all of Harry’s charities and all of the ones that Meghan had whilst married and living in the UK as a Working Royal, all were deemed above board and receipts for every entry etc. Republic were slightly better known than before the Charity Commission investigated their claims, I personally believe that Republic shot themselves in the foot.  I immediately cancelled all my dealings with them. Removed my name from any lists relating to them, and I did not become a Member as I had intended to do.  I removed my name from any updates etc from the organisations.  All the good work I saw that they had done previously, and the hopes I had for the future, found myself wishing that there was another organisation out there, that could help remove the Monarchy we had I place.  I would never trust to go back into any kind of supportive role with their cause. They dropped the ball for attracting so many more new people, by deciding to stick themselves to the side of Harry, and to ride on his wave for clout.  It backfired, and it was damaging to Republic, and very hurtful and distasteful to Harry by all accounts.

The Heritage Foundation, however, who I knew nothing about until recent months, seems a very well oiled machine.  Having gone through their website, which is very slick and very well presented, sets out its case in a very serious no nonsense style.  I don’t follow their line of thinking on anything.  A very far right organisation, but unlike many others out there, this one is slick in their methodology.  They know what they want, and they are very high achieving individuals it seems on the various management boards.  High achieving scholars, successful business people and whilst their ambitions lie in the USA, it is clear that they are not against, working with/advising other nations how to switch whole nations to far right thinking.  There are training programmes for people entering the organisation as young academics and future leaders, and there are a range of options and programmes to develop Leaders of the Future. That is just one of many topics.  The website is very well put together.  I have used this word to describe them earlier, but the website is very very slick.

The group of high achievers on their various Management Boards, are no ones fool.  So all this with Prince Harry’s visa application is not being done with them expecting much if anything visa related, but it has certainly got people asking, particularly those who had never heard of them before, what is this organisation all about.  The Foundation is very focused on border control (certain borders anyway) and immigration into the USA. Looking to change the rules, and also to revisit who can be a citizen of the USA, eg it should not be sufficient to have been born in the USA to become a citizen.  I think we all know who will not automatically be a USA citizen by birth if they got into a seat of power in the future.

Well, I can tell you that they have been around for 50 years.  Margaret Thatcher a UK Prime Minister in the past, donated funds to the Heritage Foundation many years ago.  Government Ministers of the Conservative government in the UK, has had at least two MPs visit and give speeches at HF conferences from the recent cabinets.  Royal Reporters, or at least one name was mentioned in one source as being someone who also spoke at a HF occasion; not sure if the person visited the USA or did the speech/contribution via Zoom.  It is no surprise to me that with the government that we have in the UK, and the heart of the Royal Reporters group being Far Right in their views, along with a Royal Family who feels the same, it is no surprise that these two factions are already visiting, communicating with each other. The Royal Reporter in question has form for fraternizing with Far Right groups, one in particular, and receipts galore exist for that friendship.  No embarrassment to admit that in print more than once. The Heritage Foundation business aims and objectives, are multi faceted, each level dealing with a level within a societal structure. The overlap with UK politics and Monarchy is clear, as it will be in a growing number of countries around the world. The Heritage Foundation’s membership is about 10 times that of Republic, and the potential reach it has to liaise and with other nations around the world, will only improve alongside this fictitious legal bid to have Harry’s USA Visa application made public.  It is all about higher profile and reach on a global stage.  The HF is intent on changing the political and social landscape of as many USA states as possible, but world domination is not ruled out, nor is it fanciful when you research this organisation.

To repeat, when you look at who comprises the management structure of the Heritage Foundation, and then look at some of the less than ‘smart’ politicians out there in a growing number of USA states, you will understand why there is this ‘grow your own leader’ type scheme in the Foundation.  Be concerned, very concerned.


Although Royal Correspondents are often the subject of mirth from those who disapprove of their news reporting roles (Blackall, 2021), they, and more importantly the systems they belong to, are still not subject to systemic critical analysis in popular culture or scholarly research. The role of the Royal Correspondent in upholding systems of capital, elites and privilege is vital to understanding the broader landscape of both UK journalism and the UK’s feelings towards its royal family. What does it mean when only a handful of elite actors get access to royal news, and can choose to spread or hide information as they wish? What does it mean when the actors responsible for producing a large proportion of royal news, and certainly the royal news which has the most semblance of legitimacy, is produced by those within the same privileged class? These are the bigger questions about monarchy, media and power that need further consideration if we are to understand the influence of the British royal family in British culture.”


Ivy Barrow

04 June 2023


References Sources